Ten years ago this tune became so popular with dancers that it was nearly anthemic to the industry. I have alot of good SC memories tied to the song and, not having heard it for ages, considered bringing the CD to my Second Home for one of my Harem to do it justice on stage.
I was too stoned (We'll save that for another topic. I promise.) to remember the CD, but fortune and New Meat both smiled on me later that night. A newly recruited hottie played it as part of her first set. Karma? Kinda. She's not my type, but it got my ass to the stage with an extra tip. Great icebreaker when we chatted later as well.
Anyway, I guess this serendipitous anecdote leads to the topic:
What (if any) influence does a dancer's choice of music have?
Personally, I tip extra for my favorite genre (metal mostly) either at the stage or, if I'm busy, for the dollar dance later.
Happy hunting, DG


I may err on the side of being too open minded about music. I don't dismiss any style of music, no matter how negative my initial reaction. I've invariably found that when I take the time to listen patiently and make a real effort to appreciate it for what its fans hear in it, there's no style of music I can't find worthwhile. Each has good and bad practitioners, mostly bad in most cases, and usually the best aren't the most visible, so casual listening gives a stereotypical picture of a genre (e.g., country, metal, opera).
When we first hear something unfamiliar to our ears or our sensibilities, all we notice are the differences. Sometimes, we're seduced by its freshness or intrigued by its cleverness. Oten, we are repelled, annoyed, offended, or completely baffled. However, the more I listen, the less I fixate on differences and the more I hear what it shares with all music. Obviously, I don't have time to give to every one of the thousands of musical styles out there - nobody does - but when I don't "get" some style, I realize it's a shortcoming of mine, not anything intrinsic to the music, and no reason to doubt the ears of its fans. [insert bagpipe joke here]
I feel the same way about the different eras of music. The 60s & 70s was a great time for rock music, but like a lot of people I got kind of tired of hearing nothing else. I was glad that tastes finally moved on and new trends have emerged that emphasize different aspects of music. I don't buy the idea that pop music peaked 40 years ago and has been in decline ever since. I believe it has maintianed a fairly steady level of quality. It just depends on what you're used to hearing and what you expect of it. To somebody who was used to the classic songs of the 30s, 60s rock could have seemed hopelessly unsophisticated. To somebody accustomed to today's frank sexuality and hypnotic beats, 60s rock might sound naive and rhythmically dull. They'd be missing out, and so is anyone who insists the music they grew up with is the only true yardstick.
Finally, this idea that something "isn't music" because it isn't sung or played according to the technical specifications you think are correct is beyond me. If you don't like it, fine. But it seems self-evidently silly in this day and age say that music only qualifies as music depending on whether it's acoustic, amplified, live, recorded, overdubbed, pre-programmed, sung operatically, into a microphone, talked, written by the singer, with or without guitars, synthesizers, session men, sampled, looped, recorded from elephants, whatever. It's all music, whether you tune it out or not.